Rationales provided by advocates of the impeachment of George W. Bush

Main article: Movement to impeach George W. Bush

Several advocates of impeaching President George W. Bush, assert that one or more of President Bush's actions qualify as "high crimes and misdemeanors" under which the president can constitutionally be impeached.

This article presents a list of rationales as suggested by proponents of the movement to impeach President Bush. These arguments have been offered by commentators, legal analysts, politicians of the Democratic Party and others. For example, the Center for Constitutional Rights, a civil rights legal advocacy non-profit organization based in New York, discusses some arguments in Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush.

Since impeachment is an inherently political, and not a legal process, there is no exact definition of what constitutes an impeachable offense, therefore this list is not necessarily accurate. Simply stated, it is up to Congress to determine if something rises to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors."

NSA warrantless surveillance controversy

Proponents of impeachment based on warrantless surveillance controversy

Elizabeth Holtzman (served four terms in Congress, where she played a key role in House impeachment proceedings against President Richard Nixon), representative John Conyers, John Dean (former counsel to the president) and Jennifer van Bergen from FindLaw assert that FISA has been violated and the claimed legal authority is invalid, constituting a felony and as such an impeachable offense.

Analysis of legal basis of warrantless surveillance controversy as basis for impeachment

For a detailed analysis of the controversy, see NSA warrantless surveillance controversy.

In the context of the "war on terror", President Bush ordered wiretapping of certain international calls to and from U.S. without a warrant. Whether this is legal is currently debated, since the program appears to violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which was adopted to remedy similar actions in the past (i.e. Operation Shamrock, Operation Minaret, Church Committee). Additionally, it allegedly violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which prohibits unlawful searches and seizures - this includes electronic surveillance. These allegations have been advanced by articles published in The Christian Science Monitor and The Nation. In its defense, the administration has asserted that FISA does not apply as the President was authorized by the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) and the presidential powers as Commander-in-Chief inherent in the Constitution (unitary executive theory), to bypass FISA. (See also: Separation of powers and rule of law.)

In January 2006, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service released two legal analyses concluding that "...no court has held squarely that the Constitution disables the Congress from endeavoring to set limits on that power. To the contrary, the Supreme Court has stated that Congress does indeed have power to regulate domestic surveillance... the NSA surveillance program... would appear to be inconsistent with the law." On February 13 2006, the American Bar Association issued a statement denouncing the warrantless domestic surveillance program, accusing the President of exceeding his powers under the Constitution. Their analysis opines that the key arguments advanced by the Bush administration are not compatible with the law. In March 2006, New York Times reported that five former FISA judges have voiced their doubts as to the legallity of the program.

Some commentators, responding to the Bush administration's justification of the program, say that its interpretation of presidential power overthrows the Constitutional system of checks and balances and ignores other provisions of the Constitution mandating that the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" and vesting Congress with the sole authority "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces" and "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." The Senate Committee voted along party lines, and decided a detailed investigation into the matter was unwarranted.

2003 Invasion of Iraq

Consitutionality of Invasion

Further information: Invasion of Iraq

The case for impeachment, put forward by John Bonifaz in the book Warrior-King: The Case for Impeaching George W. Bush is the same as the grounds for his John Doe I v. President Bush lawsuit; namely, that Bush invaded Iraq without a clear Congressional declaration of war. The argument is that the Congressional resolution to authorize Bush to use military force in Iraq was unconstitutional because it "confers discretion upon the President to wage war", contrary to the War Powers Clause of the Constitution. Francis Boyle (professor of international law at the University of Illinois) also uses this argument as reason in his Draft Impeachment Resolution.

Justification for Invasion

Furthermore, the arguments put forward for the invasion of Iraq — the possession and development of weapons of mass destruction and active links to al Qaeda — have been found to be false, according to all official reports. . The Bush administration advocated that this was due to failure by the intelligence community. However, it has become clear that, prior to the invasion, these arguments had already been widely disputed, which had purportedly been reported to the U.S. administration. An in-depth investigation into the nature of these discrepancies by the Senate Intelligence Committee has been frustrated. Or, as a New York Times editorial states:

Mr. Roberts (chairman of the Senate panel) tried to kill the investigation entirely, and after the Democrats forced him to proceed, he set rules that seem a lot like the recipe for a whitewash.

Supporters of impeachment argue that the administration knowingly distorted intelligence reports or ignored contrary information in constructing their case for the war. The Downing Street memo and the Bush-Blair memo are used to substantiate that allegation. Congressional Democrats sponsored both a request for documents and a resolution of inquiry. A report by the Washington Post on April 12 2006, corroborates that view. It states that the Bush administration advocated that two small trailers which had been found in Iraq were "biological laboratories," despite the fact that U.S. intelligence officials possessed evidence to the contrary at that time.

"The three-page field report and a 122-page final report published three weeks later were stamped "secret" and shelved. Meanwhile, for nearly a year, administration and intelligence officials continued to publicly assert that the trailers were weapons factories."

Activists charge that Bush committed obstruction of Congress, a felony under 18 U.S.C. 1001, both by withholding information which he ought to have communicated, and by supplying information, in his States of the Union speeches, that he should have known to be incorrect. This law is comparable to perjury, but it does not require that the statements be made under oath.

John Conyers, Robert Parry and Marjorie Cohn -professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, executive vice president of the National Lawyers Guild, and the U.S. representative to the executive committee of the American Association of Jurists- assert that this was not a war in self-defense but a war of aggression contrary to the U.N. Charter (a crime against peace) and therefore a war crime. Such would constitute an impeachable offense according to Francis Boyle, John W. Dean, from FindLaw, Marcus Raskin and Joseph A. Vuckovich, from the Institute for Policy Studies.

Geneva Conventions controversy

Further information: Unlawful combatant

Further information: Combatant Status Review Tribunal

Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Bush administration advocated that suspected Al Qaeda and Taliban members would be designated as unlawful combatants. They suggested that, as such, they were not protected under the Geneva Conventions. To address the mandatory review by a "competent tribunal" as defined by article five of the Third Geneva Convention, Combatant Status Review Tribunals were established. The American Bar Association, Human Rights Watch, the Council on Foreign Relations and Joanne Mariner from FindLaw have dismissed the use of the unlawful combatant status as not compatible with U.S. and international law.

Representative John Conyers has advocated investigating these alleged abuses to see if they violate the Geneva Conventions and are thus cause for impeachment, while Francis A. Boyle, Elizabeth Holtzman and Veterans For Peace hold that violating these laws is grounds for impeachment.

Extraordinary rendition

Further information: Extraordinary rendition

Further information: United Nations Convention Against Torture

Critics have accused the CIA of rendering suspected terrorists to other countries in order to avoid U.S. laws prescribing due process and prohibiting torture, calling this "torture by proxy" and "torture flights". Alberto Gonzales explicitly testified to Congress that the administration's position was to extradite detainees to other nations as long as it was not "more likely than not" that they would be tortured, although he later modified that statement. However, the Convention against torture states:

No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.

Commentators, including the United Nations and Louise Arbour, have stated that, under international law, rendition as practiced by the U.S. government is illegal. Conyers has called for investigating whether these violations of international and US law constitute an impeachable offense, whereas Boyle thinks it does, and included this in his Draft Impeachment Resolution.

Treatment of detainees

As part of the war on terror several memos were written analyzing the legal position and possibilities in the treatment of prisoners. The memos, known today as the "torture memos," advocate enhanced interrogation techniques, but point out that refuting the Geneva Conventions would reduce the possibility of prosecution for war crimes. In addition, a new definition of torture was issued. Most actions that fall under the international definition do not fall within this new definition advocated by the U.S.

Several top military lawyers including Alberto J. Mora reported that policies allowing methods equivalent to torture were officially handed down from the highest levels of the administration, and led an effort within the Department of Defense to put a stop to those policies and instead mandate non-coercive interrogation standards.

Notwithstanding the suggestion of official policy, the administration repeatedly assured critics that the publicised cases were incidents, and President Bush later stated that:

"The United States of America does not torture. And that's important for people around the world to understand."

To address the multitude of incidents of prisoner abuse the McCain Detainee Amendment was adopted. However, in his signing statement President Bush made clear that he reserved the right to waive this bill if he thought that was needed.

Over the years numerous incidents have been made public and a UN report denounced the abuse of prisoners as tantamount to torture. Several legal analysts -such as Marjorie Cohn, Elizabeth Holtzman, Human Rights First- have advocated that writing these memos, not preventing or stopping the abuse could result in legal challenges involving war crimes under the command responsibility. These violations of US and international law could be an impeachable offense.

Allegedly leaking classified information

Alleged involvement in the CIA leak

In his 2003 State of the Union Address, President Bush cited British government sources in saying that Saddam Hussein was seeking uranium. He referred to what ultimately turned out to be falsified documents. After Ambassador Wilson wrote an OpEd article in the New York Times denouncing the yellowcake basis and other justifications for the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, the identity of his wife as a CIA employee appeared in media reports for the first time. Wilson later made the allegation her identity was leaked in personal retaliation against him for his. An investigation into this by Patrick Fitzgerald led to an indictment of Lewis "Scooter" Libby on perjury charges, not for releasing information regarding Plame. At one point, Libby's indictment states:

"Prior to July 14 2003, Valerie Wilson’s affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community."

The litigation surrounding Libby has yielded court papers showing that Libby was authorized and instructed to disseminate formerly classified information by his superiors. No court papers have alledged that Bush or Cheney authorized the release of Plame's name. On April 13 2006, Bloomberg.com reported Libby has testified that Bush and Cheney did not authorize the release of Plame's name. Libby's position is that he did not leak Plame's name. The actual first source of Plame's name to the media is in dispute. Also disputed is the fact that Plame was, at the time, classified as a covert agent. However, the attorney general's choice to appoint a special prosecutor would suggest she was.

Allegedly declassifying for political purposes

On April 06, 2006, court papers were filed in the CIA leak grand jury investigation, stating that Libby had testified that President Bush authorized the disclosure of select portions of the then classified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq. The position of the Bush administration is that a Presidentally authorized release of material is not a "leak" in the sense that Presidents are authorized to de-classiffy material and the release of de-classified material is not leaking. Some argue that this contradicts previous statements by Bush in which he made clear that leaking information is unacceptable. According to the court filings by Fitzgerald:

“Defendant (Libby) testified that this July 8 meeting was the only time he recalled in his government experience when he disclosed a document to a reporter that was effectively declassified by virtue of the President’s authorization that it be declassified.”

Elizabeth de la Vega, Ray McGovern and Greg Mitchell have noted that the Bush Administration's asserted motivation — that this declassification was needed to counter misinformation spread by opponents of the Bush administration's casus belli — is odd, since only an obscure part of the NIE, which supports the claims advanced by the US government, has been released, while the rest of the report, in which the CIA in 2002 allegedly dismissed that claim as unlikely, is still classified. Bush's alleged misrepresentations on this point and his declassifying of information for allegedly a political purpose, is seen by some as impeachable offense.

Hurricane Katrina

The alleged responsibility of the George W. Bush administration in the mishandling of Hurricane Katrina has been used by Ramsey Clark, Francis Boyle, PopMatters, Green Party of Humboldt County and the Sunday Independent to suggest failure by the administration to adequately provide for the need of its citizens. And as such they hold that the allegations of incompetence amount to an impeachable offense.

The administration, and its supporters, contend that the principal responsibility lies with the local authorities. Therefore any accusation of inadequate handling of the disaster should be addressed at the Governor Kathleen Babineaux Blanco.

Alleged abuse of power

Main article: Unitary executive theory

As Commander-in-Chief in the war on terror, President Bush has asserted broad war powers to protect the American people. These have been used to justify policies connected with the war. Elizabeth Holtzman, John Dean, Elizabeth de la Vega, AlterNet, the St. Petersburg Times and the Santiago Times have claimed that Bush has exceeded constitutional or other legal limitations on such war powers. The Draft Impeachment Resolution by Boyle advocates that this is an impeachable offense.

The Bush administration denies this allegation by explaining that the President is only asserting his Constitutional duty as Commander-in-Chief to protect the country.

Criticism

Although John Conyers introduced a motion to investigate the possible grounds for impeachment, this has been met with little support by Democrats and Republicans alike. In response Feingold introduced a motion to censure, which is also unlikely to pass.

It has been suggested that the entire movement to impeach President Bush is nothing more than partisan politics.

Many on the left oppose the movement to impeach Bush, based on the rationale that it would lead to the (presumably) more-undesirable situation of a Cheney Presidency.

See also

• George W. Bush
• Impeachment in the United States
• Movement to impeach George W. Bush